1
IN BETWEEN -
Bridging conflict in the multivalent city of Belgrade by Michael de Beer
in collaboration with project architects Brygida Zawaska and Doung Vo Hong
2
1
BELGRADE | the frontline
Belgrade’s arduous history sets it apart as a notable case study of a city under duress. Between various wars and
political influences, the city’s expansion has been multivalent and divergent. The scars of conflict can still be seen today as districts remain isolated and disparate while buildings are still riddled with bullet holes. Within this embattled context there is a palpable craving for progress amongst the populace as the city remains seemingly active twenty-four hours a day. Protests for civil liberties and state accountability are commonplace. Yet the future of Belgrade raises many questions and thus positioned it as being an ideal case study for the focus of Tudelft's, Complex Projects studio. It is critical to frame an understanding of the drivers / history that has brought the city to its current complex state, in order to understand the significance of IN BETWEEN, a TUDelft’s Complex project’s landmark studio project - aiming to address social, cultural and spatial fragmentation of the city
.
Present-day Belgrade can be defined as polycentric, given the amalgamation of surrounding settlements. This has been formed through continual symbolic gestures of the “modern city” from various periods. In understanding the city of today, the systematic destruction and reconstruction has created an urban fabric only one or two centuries old, making Belgrade a very young city. This is particularly significant, if we keep in mind that Belgrade has been the site of human settlement for over 7000 years. It can be argued that this is largely due to the city’s strategic location on the confluence of the Danube and Sava River. The position has been critical for territorial control over the region and an access point into the Europe, putting at the forefront of many a conflict. This has resulted in the city being razed to the ground 44 times in its history. Austrian and Ottoman conflict between 1520 and 1690 was focused on Belgrade as a key location. The result was that by 1690, when Ottoman rule took hold, much of the city had been destroyed. 1690 can be argued as being the foundation year of the city we know today. The Ottoman’s authoritarian rule led to persecution of the population and the fortification of the city. Soon enough, independent forces ignited an uprising against Ottoman rule, leading to a diplomatic solution by 1820 forming the Kingdom of Serbia, with Belgrade as its capital. The following years were marked by
a purge of the traces of Ottoman presence with the most notable being the formation of Republic Square on the site where Serbians were hung for crimes against the Ottoman state. By the end of the century industrialization had ushered in Belgrade as an industrialized center. The population boomed and moved away from an agrarian state, focusing on industrial production and commerce. The peace Belgrade had experienced in the last century would soon be broken again in 1914, the beginning of the First World War. Once again on the frontline, the city found its population decimated and by the end of the war the city’s context had dramatically changed. After the war, the city experienced an unprecedented growth and intensive development in all directions. It suddenly bloomed into an international city, with a new airport, regional rail connections and hosting large events such as the grand prix, defining itself as a thriving modern metropolis to be reckoned with. But this condition was not long to last. In fact, World War II turned out to be one of the most devastating events for the morphology of the city. Both German and Allied forces extensively bombed Belgrade, leveling more than a third of the city and obliterating surrounding towns. In 1945, marking the end of the war, Tito took power and with it he envisioned a grand socialist future for Yugoslavia and Belgrade alike. New Belgrade, a new modern city, was to be the landmark of this vision. The new development was both a political statement and an opportunity to address the housing
2
2
atlantis???????
3
crisis. The city development agenda was marked by rapid state-funded urbanisation, as Belgrade grew from 2000sq/km (1950) to 3000 sq/km (1970). However, the housing crisis had sparked a prolific growth of informal settlements and buildings that occupied areas around the periphery of the city, spreading in the surrounding territory. By the end of the century, the city was highly fragmented and dwarfed the city of the past. A new conflict ushered in the new century as the Yugoslav wars broke down Yugoslavia into independent states. 1991 – 1999 marked the transition between a statemanaged socialist economy to a purely capitalistic society. The transition driven by ethnic conflict, dramatically ended with severe NATO intervention. The change to a capitalist economy brought with it private ownership and a positive impact on the economy. Led by market forces, the city grew drastically between 2000 and 2016, amalgamating many of the past rural centers in the municipality, as suburban development took form with a proliferation of housing estates and continued the development of informal housing. Although Belgrade has returned to a state of stability, the cinders of conflict remain. With a fragmented city form due to its history, urban development remains a primary issue. A recent example is the iconographic yellow duck, representing a call for political accountability, as Emirates positions a mega city development on
the banks of the city center – Belgrade Waterfront. Equally, stark divisions within the city underpin class, racial, cultural and ideological separation. Belgrade’s past will be a major stumbling block going into the future as spatial practitioners aim to address the city’s complex situation. IN BETWEEN, part of the Complex Project studio, offers an insightful objective for spatial practitioners going forward. It calls for new ways for spatial practice to intervene and stitch the city together overcoming its fragmented and conflicted past.
IN BETWEEN In between the city center of Belgrade and its suburbs lies the Mostar Interchange. The Interchange came into existence in 1974 as a monument of socialist power and the medium bringing new relation between the city and the New Belgrade. In those days, it stressed the importance of machines - cars. Today, it continuously functions as an infrastructural device, however it leaves a peculiar influence on the city - in the sense that it functions as a border dividing it. It separates the city from the river, contributing to the emergence of an extensive wasteland between the traffic line and the water. This currently underutilised piece of land has garnered recent attention as it is critically located by the newly planned development of the Belgrade Waterfront. The Waterfront development promises a huge investment that will impact the greater city significantly. However, the generic, vague vision that is depicted,
3
doesn't seem to promise any valuable spots for citizens. Nor does it promise to solve the key issues of fragmentation and separation. The project IN BETWEEN characterises itself as a series of urban interventions that aim to improve the quality of the public space in Belgrade. It realizes that through the insertion of a strong urban gesture- the line- which connects not only the citizens to the river but altogether to the Mostar Interchange - sets the frame for developing the space in between. Throughout this action, two landmarks- one of the past and one relating to the present- creates a new landmark- solely designated for the citizen. The space in between is intended to function as a community hub, offering a variety of public functions - called stations. The choice of peculiar functions derives from the morphology of the site as well as the analysis of the neighboring context, which is strongly influenced by the railway industry. Hence, the proposed stations are (from the side of the river): the Sava Station, the Waterline Station, the Living Room Station, the Culture Station and the Gazela Park Station. Each of them is different and in its design hints at the past of the site or depicts particular values, In which Serbian culture recognizes herself. Being in an in-between space, the visitor is able to confront different environments. However, there is one continuous element, able to connect everything together, becoming "a local landmark" - the line.
4
Repositioning the City The critical intervention is ultimately a call for unification. By Connecting unassociated spaces, the intervention draws attention to the importance of simplicity in bridging the multivalent city. Positioning the citizen at the heart of the intervention, the project serves the people whom, for so long, have been bombarded by both conflict and grand visions – the Waterfront Development included. Responding to a critical infrastructural need and accepting the context in which it is positioned, it has garnered a new vision for the city - One able to transcend boundaries and years of turmoil. Although modestly sitting within a redefined context - the project draws on hope and emboldens a sense of a positive future - in doing so; positions itself as a landmark. Yet, it is not a landmark of some authoritarian figure, nor a scar of war that litters the city throughout, or a statement by a faceless company; but rather a landmark of the citizen drawn back into the public domain.
References
Complex Projects (2016) Complex Projects Msc1 Research Book, Tudelft Emily Makas, Tanja Conley (eds.) (2010). Capital cities in the aftermath of empires. London and New York: Routledge Grigor Doytchinov, Aleksnadra Dukic, Catalina Ionita (eds.) (2015). Planning Capital Cities/ Belgrade/ Bucharest/ Sofia. Graz: Verlag der Technischen Universitat Graz
5
1. Looking over the Sava River toward New Belgrade - It is just the begining 2. Walking in IN BETWEEN, toward the river. 3. View at the Mostar interchange - a view in between 4. The LivingroomStation 5. The Cultural Station
In this sense, the project is a stark reminder to spatial practitioners that it is in the everyday needs and lives, not grand gestures, where the greatest impact may be made. Through such acts, architects and urbanists are able to gently and precisely reconfigure space and thus redefine places. The project, although addressing a very localized need, is able to reposition the whole city in the eyes of its inhabitants. •
4
5